The Rocky Mountain News
www.rockymountainnews.com

Drawing the line on growth
Matsunaka adamant about growth planning

By Michele Ames
May 21, 2001

It could be the bridge too far in the growth debate.

Growth boundaries, called urban service areas, have become Senate Democrats' litmus test for sprawl control legislation. It appears a safe bet the issue will decide if Colorado gets new growth management rules or lawmakers walk away empty-handed from their second attempt to pass legislation.

As lawmakers return to the Capitol today for what most think will be the last week of their special session, growth boundaries are likely to dominate the discussion.

A week ago, Sen. President Stan Matsunaka, D-Loveland, told the 35-member Senate, where his party has a one vote edge: "This is where we draw our line in the sand."

No one doubted that he was serious.

During the 120-day regular session, negotiations broke down over the issue. Rather than eliminate growth boundaries, Senate Democrats killed the compromise bill Republicans favored.

"It may well be political suicide, but I'm willing to make that stand," Matsunaka said. "They say we can't get this concept into law. But at least on my watch, I will have held out for the best I could get. If that's my legacy -- that I failed -- so be it."

At issue is whether cities and counties should be required to map the areas where they will provide services for the next 20 years, essentially setting limits on growth.

Those limits would be further defined with six-year lines drawn closer to the urban areas. Officials would evaluate the lines regularly and allow them to roll outward in an orderly way from the dense city centers.

Within the six-year lines, developers would be assured they could build as long as they follow the rules.

If they tried to move farther to the 20-year lines, cities and counties would gain increasing veto power over construction. They also would be allowed to charge additional fees and make developers pay for more water and sewer lines, utility construction and road building.

Outside the 20-year lines, development would be more restricted, requiring that houses either be built on larger lots or clustered. In theory, that would force development closer to the already urbanized areas and limit sprawl.

Critics argue the lines will drive up land prices in the easier to develop areas and drive down property values in rural areas.

"Any line is going to have winners and losers," said Alan Foutz, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau.

Others want more study before making up their minds about growth boundaries.

Rep. Joe Stengel, R-Littleton, carried a major piece of growth legislation that failed during the regular session. Stengel has returned with a compromise he hopes will let the legislature study the issue and introduce a new bill next year.

"I know many of you had never heard of urban service areas before three weeks ago," Stengel told his House colleagues last week. "That's why they need further study."

Although the concept may be new to Colorado's growth debate, professional planners have been using it for years. Most statewide growth legislation includes the idea in one form or another, according to Liz Telford, legislative co-chairwoman of the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association.

"This is an element of growth management in almost every state that's done this," Telford said. "Part of the reason is that leaving it totally up to localities about how far urban-type development goes has led to what we have today."

But Matsunaka said he didn't have to look beyond his own county to be convinced that growth boundaries should be part of Colorado's strategy. He lives in Larimer County, the only place in Colorado that is using growth lines to map where development will go and where it will not.

Loveland and Fort Collins have agreed to the county's growth boundaries to ensure the planning works together.

"There is always going to be a division as to where it's urban and where it's rural. I don't think drawing a line changes that," said Larry Timm, director of planning and building services for Larimer County. "It just defines where that break is officially going to be. Having growth management areas adds predictability to that process."

But Timm will be the first to say that the boundaries have caused conflict. Currently, the cities of Berthoud and Loveland have mapped out a plan to avoid expanding into one another by not including the land between the two cities inside their growth lines.

While that may be a plus for open space, people who own land in the excluded areas are frustrated because development won't be coming their way.

"You have this conflict where you have a property owner's right to develop their land and not have their property values hurt," Timm said. "At the same time you have a municipality that has the right to determine where it's going to grow and where it's not going to grow."

Even with such conflicts, Matsunaka is holding firm.

"If we do no planning, it will be wall-to-wall people from Pueblo to Cheyenne," Matsunaka said. "I think Colorado should take one last chance to plan its growth future. And we're going to force the issue."